Lock in the dock is left without a leg to stand on

By Mick Cleary

9:45PM GMT 12 Feb 2002

DID Martin Johnson deserve to be sent off last Saturday? Undoubtedly so. Is he being unfairly singled out by the media? Certainly not and for one very simple reason - no punch, no story. Should he be hauled before the Rugby Football Union and brought to account? That's a much trickier one but the answer is `Yes'.

If Johnson had been red-carded for the swipe he took at Robbie Russell, then he would have had no cause for complaint. He would have faced a three-week suspension, possibly more given that it is only 12 months since he served a five-week ban for kneeing and punching. Previous is previous, m'lud.

But he wasn't sent off. So what is he guilty of? A rush of blood and an angry uppercut? No, much more than that. The punch caused Russell to have six stitches and left him with considerable swelling around his left eye-socket. It is no use arguing that the damage caused is incidental: that the punch was spontaneous and rash - no more than that. That's hogwash.

The consequences of an action are what count in a court of law, not the action in isolation. If a bloke throws a punch in a bar and it clips someone's shoulder is that therefore no worse than the same punch that knocks the guy off-balance causing him to hit his head and die from head wounds. No, it isn't. One is a minor incident, the other is manslaughter. Johnson's punch caused damage. That has to be a factor.

Is the game worse off for him having done it? No, it isn't. Punches get thrown. It is the reaction to what he has done that matters. Of course Martin Johnson is a different case to lesser names. He does attract more interest. That is the nature of his status and celebrity. He reaps the rewards, as do Leicester and England. If you take the benefits, you must also take the drawbacks.

Do television and press highlight the incident more than if it were a run-of-the-mill player? Of course they do. That is the nature of the professional game. A pact with the devil? Perhaps. You gets your money and we take our scrutiny. Rugby union wants publicity, courts sponsors and encourages media exposure. Without it, there would be no professional game. No money, no profile, no hassle - the mathematics are simple.

Johnson is in the dock and rightly so. It goes with the turf.

Johnson is a hard man, in substance as well as in myth. He trades on the image and we have all celebrated him for that. The walking glower, the beetle-browed enforcer, the menace, the intimidator, the man who knocked on the door of the Springboks dressing-room as captain of the 1997 Lions and made them think twice.

It would be hypocritical now to damn him for those very attributes. The punch in anger was an extension of that persona. It was wrong and it should be punished but it does not drag either the game or Johnson into the gutter. He treads a fine line and he simply overstepped the mark.

What does bringing the game into disrepute actually mean? Is public opinion outraged? I doubt it very much. In fact, I would bet every last penny of my considerable overdraft that Johnson will be cheered to the rafters when he leads England down the Twickenham tunnel on Saturday.

He was hailed as a hero last year just after the players' strike when there were probably more grounds for claiming that he brought the sport into disrepute.

This does not mean that the RFU should not take action. However, it is only three months since Premier Rugby overhauled its disciplinary process. The clubs' governing body brought in independent match commissioners who had the power to cite players for four play, but only if the incident had not been dealt with by the match official.

To invoke emergency powers now at the first sign of a crisis is to risk undermining their own system. However, this is an exceptional case. It smacks of the time the Football Association had to deal with a transgression by Alan Shearer just before the 1998 World Cup, when the England captain kicked Leicester's Neil Lennon in the head.

The FA tip-toed round the issue and, under pressure from the England management, handed out only a two-match ban. Vested interest got the better of natural justices. They bottled it.

The same is true here. The RFU have to be seen to do the right thing, to lead by example rather than hide behind what might suit either England or even their supporters. Johnson has always fronted-up, made tough decisions in tight corners. The RFU should do likewise.